Jump to content

Ramsay wrote the pink letter


aryagonnakill#2

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Don't misunderstand me, Tybald held the pen and did the writing but he wrote what Stannis told him to write.

Yes I understand your point.  Compare all the letters written personally (all that comes to mind immediately are Lysa's letter to Cat, Ned's personalization of Robert's will and Ramsay's various greetings) to the letters written by maesters (Night's Watch letter to Stannis, Night's Watch letters to lords for support).   There is a formality to maester's letters that is markedly absent from the Pink Letter.   Granted, Stannis' letter written by Tybald is entirely within Stannis' personality and style but it is well-written and essentially error free.   This monstrosity that is the Pink Letter would fail any 4th grade English class.   And there is the matter of the smear of wax as opposed to a neat wax stamp.   Whomever wrote and sealed the Pink Letter was as angry after writing as before.   I wish Westeros had an FBI to investigate, but all we have is each other.   

You've obviously studied this and believe the position you've taken.   My question is out of respect, in no way a slam.  Can you really see Stannis coming up with this sort of mad wording or allowing an imperfect seal to leave his care?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we look at Ramsays relationship with Reek and how much he actually enjoys owning him, having power over him etc. I think Ramsay would view getting Reek back as quite important. 

Reek is mentioned quite late in the letter though, and that always sways me away from Ramsay writing it, I always got the feeling he would find getting Reek back of quite high importance, but Reek is not mentioned until after Selyse, Shireen, Melisandre, Val, and also the babe.

That's strange to me and does not really sound like Ramsay. 

Also if Ramsay had flayed the skin from six women the fact no flap of skin accompanies the letter seems more than a little strange. With that much skin he could have written the letter on skin if he wanted. And since his letter seems full of emotion and purpose I find the lack of skin, which he would have plenty of and would have gave the letter an extra bit of darkness, quite strange. 

And the whole "Wildling Princess, little Prince" business just strikes me as odd. Is Ramsay meant to have learned of those titles from Mance?Unless I'm missing something, I'm not so sure even Mance uses those titles for Val and the babe, and why would Mance even mention that Val was there or even exists?. 

Also, in a letter that is hellbent on labelling Jon and Stannis liars, and Stannis false, I think he would jump at the chance to say something as equally damning about the sword, which isn't magic at all, it's just a sword, I don't think Ramsay would see it as a magic sword. But Ramsay says it's a magic sword. 

That was always strange to me. 

Btw I haven't really got an author I'd be willing to bet my wages on, I just had a few queries when it came to Ramsay writing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

No, you are reading me incorrectly. I'm actually in the Ramsay's camp, but with the letter adulterated upon arrival to the Wall, by Clydas and others. Therefore its peculiarities.

I actually really like the idea of this horrible letter being further denegrated upon receipt.  A lot.   But I have difficulty believing Marsh or any of the other NW brothers involved in the stabbing needing any further motive or proof of Jon's disloyalty to the NW.   And there is no mention of different ink or handwriting.   Jon was shocked by the thing and may not have noticed.   It's all the way around curious the handwriting isn't described at all.   Ramsay's previous letter to Balon Greyjoy is about as formal and correct as I imagine Ramsay can achieve.   I find it interesting that Ramsay didn't have a maester write it for him just on the grounds of he could and seemed to really enjoy taking advantage of the perks of his newfound power.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Curled Finger said:

My question is out of respect, in no way a slam.  Can you really see Stannis coming up with this sort of mad wording or allowing an imperfect seal to leave his care?  

I believe it was sealed with a button of pink wax when it left Stannis, but was opened and read and resealed by Bowen Marsh before it was delivered to Jon, with the button of pink wax becoming a smear of pink wax in the process. And i don't think the wording of the letter is beyond Stannis either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Macgregor of the North said:

Also, in a letter that is hellbent on labelling Jon and Stannis liars, and Stannis false, I think he would jump at the chance to say something as equally damning about the sword, which isn't magic at all, it's just a sword, I don't think Ramsay would see it as a magic sword. But Ramsay says it's a magic sword. 

That was always strange to me. 

All good points Macgregor.

I think the line about the sword is very interesting. I have his magic sword. Tell his red witch. Of course the sword is not a magic sword at all, and Stannis knows as much. So does Mel. In the scenario where the letter is written by Stannis, which I am obviously supporting, then this line is inserted to hint to Mel that there is something amiss with the letter.

We know that Mel draws powers from items such as a lock of hair, a pair of boots, a bag of finger bones, as she says herself, and rubies like the one both she and Mance wear to maintain their glamours. Remove this object and the glamour fails is the conclusion I draw from that, considering Abel, who is described the same way Mance is, is not wearing the ruby in Winterfell, (though I suspect he has good reason to start wearing it again.) So if you were to take the sword away from the item that powers the glamour, then it would no longer have even the appearance of a magic sword. And only Mel would know this, so if she saw the letter of heard it's contents read then she would know that Ramsay cannot have the "magic" sword unless he knows what item on Stannis body, like his boots or a lock of hair or a ruby, the glamour needs to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

- Lack of scrap of skin. I find this argument very strong in such strong worded letter. Ramsay would have included.  Same with blood writing.

Hello, the human skin needs a special and quite difficult and long treatment not to putrefy. It's not evident that someone near Winterfell or in Winterfell had time and possibility to make human leather, even with a little piece. Ramsay could send a "piece of Theon" because he kept him for months at Dreadfort. Roose confirms indirectly this difficulty when he answers to Ramsay (pretending making boots with Brabrey's skin) that human leather is very poor leather. 

Blood make very bad ink and needs also to be mixted with ordinary ink to resist.

Ink freezes with great cold but this problem might not occur inside Winterfell

Spoiler

in the Theon's chapter frome TWOW, we see Stannis, outside Winterfell, writing some words with his own blood because ink is frozen

So scrap of skin or blood can't be used as arguments against "Ramsay as author", but they can be arguments for situation of urgency, inside Winterfell (where the ink don't freeze). ^_^ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GloubieBoulga said:

Hello, the human skin needs a special and quite difficult and long treatment not to putrefy. It's not evident that someone near Winterfell or in Winterfell had time and possibility to make human leather, even with a little piece. Ramsay could send a "piece of Theon" because he kept him for months at Dreadfort. Roose confirms indirectly this difficulty when he answers to Ramsay (pretending making boots with Brabrey's skin) that human leather is very poor leather. 

Blood make very bad ink and needs also to be mixted with ordinary ink to resist.

Ink freezes with great cold but this problem might not occur inside Winterfell

  Hide contents

in the Theon's chapter frome TWOW, we see Stannis, outside Winterfell, writing some words with his own blood because ink is frozen

So scrap of skin or blood can't be used as arguments against "Ramsay as author", but they can be arguments for situation of urgency, inside Winterfell (where the ink don't freeze). ^_^ 

It's a days flight for a raven to get to Castle Black, two at most. Ramsay could send a scrap of skin no problem.

"Your Grace," a second voice said softly. "Pardon, but your ink has frozen." The Braavosi, Theon knew. What was his name? Tycho... Tycho something... "Perhaps a bit of heat... ?

"I know a quicker way." Stannis drew his dagger.

I don't think frozen ink is a problem really. He only used his blood because he didn't want to wait, or perhaps the sneaky devil knows that blood makes piss poor ink and the signature on his contract with the Iron Bank will not endure? That is why the Second Sons changed from blood to red ink after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I believe it was sealed with a button of pink wax when it left Stannis, but was opened and read and resealed by Bowen Marsh before it was delivered to Jon, with the button of pink wax becoming a smear of pink wax in the process. And i don't think the wording of the letter is beyond Stannis either.

Got it, thanks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

snip

I do agree that Ramsay likely follows the Freys and Manderlys.  I think that actually makes the deception better than Stannis even having to use a raven.  While Ramsay will surely want to follow, he would also want to get info from the spearwives.  I think he would be in on torturing them as well as Mance.  His men will also need some time to assemble.  I think it is reasonable to assume they would be at least a few hours behind the others.  This gives them the ability to actually present Karkstarks head as Stannis's, and to actually see Stanniss's losses and sword.  It also allows the Manderlys to tell him they already sent scouts after Jeyne and Theon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A million more things have been written about this than ever should have been.

It's excruciatingly simple. The letter is from Ramsay. The primary purpose of the letter is to begin the Jon vs Ramsay hype train.

Quote

Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

Quote

I have my swords, thought Jon Snow, and we are coming for you, Bastard.

Who wrote the letter was never meant to be a question. The question is only what parts of the letter is true. It should be apparent that is the question because the text tells you that's the question. Immediately after dropping the letter GRRM has Tormund chime in to tell you to question it.

Quote

 

"Might be all a skin o' lies." Tormund scratched under his beard. "If I had me a nice goose quill and a pot o' maester's ink, I could write down that me member was long and thick as me arm, wouldn't make it so."

"He has Lightbringer. He talks of heads upon the walls of Winterfell. He knows about the spearwives and their number." He knows aboutMance Rayder. "No. There is truth in there."

 

That's it, that's everything to know about the letter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Just want to point out that while you agree with Ramsay as the author, you fundamentally disagree with the OP, who states:

What is being missed is that Jon only reacted the way he did because of the thousand or so willing warriors he had at his disposal.  If it were just Jon and the NW and old/young/wounded willings who could not fight, Jon would have had to literally ride to WF by himself.  What in gods name would he think he was accomplishing in this scenario?  Jon only acted the way he did after an hour long talk with Tormund where Tormund clearly had Jons back.

Also, you state that the Boltons need to get rid of Jon because as long as he lives their rule over the North remains insecure. You could be right but even if logic dictates that the Boltons should consider Jon's perceived lineage to pose some level of risk to their position, unless they think that a combination of Jon's status as a bastard and his Night's Watch vows are enough to remove or at least reduce the risk. But there is nothing in the text that even hints at the Boltons considering Jon to be a threat, and so from a literary point of view this motive lacks sufficient set-up.

I was not replying to the OP - I was replying to Aegon VII's post. ^_^

Nevertheless let me answer in more detail:

First: Jon has a wildling army.

Second: even if he didn't the letter would make sense for Ramsay as it is worded in a way that makes it nearly impossible for Jon to agree to the terms in the letter - thus offering Ramsay a pretext to come for Jon (if Jon does not come to Ramsay). So the letter makes sense either way.

As to your judgement of 'no sufficient set up' for the Boltons seeing Jon as a threat. Well we just have to agree to disagree here.

For me the books make it perfectly clear that the Boltons through treachery and murder usurped the Stark power and therefore need to get rid of any possible Stark successors to be safe from retribution.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

I do agree that Ramsay likely follows the Freys and Manderlys.  I think that actually makes the deception better than Stannis even having to use a raven.  While Ramsay will surely want to follow, he would also want to get info from the spearwives.  I think he would be in on torturing them as well as Mance.  His men will also need some time to assemble.  I think it is reasonable to assume they would be at least a few hours behind the others.  This gives them the ability to actually present Karkstarks head as Stannis's, and to actually see Stanniss's losses and sword.  It also allows the Manderlys to tell him they already sent scouts after Jeyne and Theon.

So let me get this straight, Ramsay rides out sometime after the Freys and Manderlys, comes upon the aftermath of the battle and is misinformed by Manderlys or Karstarks who have switched sides and present him with the sword and Lord Karstarks head which they say is Stannis, they tell him they already sent someone after Arya, Ramsay accepts this, rides back to Winterfell, writes the letter? Is that an accurate summary of your position?

18 hours ago, chrisdaw said:

A million more things have been written about this than ever should have been.

It's excruciatingly simple. The letter is from Ramsay. The primary purpose of the letter is to begin the Jon vs Ramsay hype train.

Who wrote the letter was never meant to be a question. The question is only what parts of the letter is true. It should be apparent that is the question because the text tells you that's the question. Immediately after dropping the letter GRRM has Tormund chime in to tell you to question it.

That's it, that's everything to know about the letter.

If who wrote the letter was never meant to be in question then GRRM would have made that very clear by including one reason more of the characteristics of Ramsay's letters, which he had previously set up.

13 hours ago, Amris said:

I was not replying to the OP - I was replying to Aegon VII's post. ^_^

Nevertheless let me answer in more detail:

First: Jon has a wildling army.

Second: even if he didn't the letter would make sense for Ramsay as it is worded in a way that makes it nearly impossible for Jon to agree to the terms in the letter - thus offering Ramsay a pretext to come for Jon (if Jon does not come to Ramsay). So the letter makes sense either way.

As to your judgement of 'no sufficient set up' for the Boltons seeing Jon as a threat. Well we just have to agree to disagree here.

For me the books make it perfectly clear that the Boltons through treachery and murder usurped the Stark power and therefore need to get rid of any possible Stark successors to be safe from retribution.

 

No one disputes that Jon has the wildling army. The point the OP made was that the author of the letter, without knowing about the wildling army, could never have expected Jon to ride south given the news of Stannis' defeat and the hopelessness of the situation. You disagreed with that your earlier post, even if you were not replying directly to the op. But now It seems you are leaning towards the letter being a pretext for Ramsay to come and get Jon, unless of course Jon comes to Ramsay, which the OP says the author could not expect.

I did say from a literary point of view the motive has not been set up, and by that I mean there has been no explicit text that promotes the idea. And that is something beyond dispute. There has been ample opportunity in the course of the story for GRRM to tell the reader how the Boltons feel about Jon and what risk he might pose, as a bastard bound to the Wall. But not once did GRRM take this opportunity, preferring to leave it implicit instead, which measures poorly against the 3 times he explicitly set up Stannis motive toward Jon across 2 books. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love all these pink letter speculations. Ramsay, Stannis, Mance, whoever.

All the speculation unearths lots of interesting points to think about.

I'll think about them and re-read the relevant chapters and maybe then come up with a coherent view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

So let me get this straight, Ramsay rides out sometime after the Freys and Manderlys, comes upon the aftermath of the battle and is misinformed by Manderlys or Karstarks who have switched sides and present him with the sword and Lord Karstarks head which they say is Stannis, they tell him they already sent someone after Arya, Ramsay accepts this, rides back to Winterfell, writes the letter? Is that an accurate summary of your position?

If who wrote the letter was never meant to be in question then GRRM would have made that very clear by including one reason more of the characteristics of Ramsay's letters, which he had previously set up.

No one disputes that Jon has the wildling army. The point the OP made was that the author of the letter, without knowing about the wildling army, could never have expected Jon to ride south given the news of Stannis' defeat and the hopelessness of the situation. You disagreed with that your earlier post, even if you were not replying directly to the op. But now It seems you are leaning towards the letter being a pretext for Ramsay to come and get Jon, unless of course Jon comes to Ramsay, which the OP says the author could not expect.

I did say from a literary point of view the motive has not been set up, and by that I mean there has been no explicit text that promotes the idea. And that is something beyond dispute. There has been ample opportunity in the course of the story for GRRM to tell the reader how the Boltons feel about Jon and what risk he might pose, as a bastard bound to the Wall. But not once did GRRM take this opportunity, preferring to leave it implicit instead, which measures poorly against the 3 times he explicitly set up Stannis motive toward Jon across 2 books. 

We have the Red Wedding. If that is not a 'literary set up motive' then I don't know what would be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Amris said:

We have the Red Wedding. If that is not a 'literary set up motive' then I don't know what would be.

 

I'm not disagreeing that there is an implicit motive. I'm simply saying that I find it strange that the motive is not explicit.

Take a closely related part of the plot for example, Bowen Marsh's stabbing of Jon. From a storytelling point of view it works because Bowen Marsh's motive has been set up explicitly, not just implicitly. Marsh clearly states his position in relation to the Wildlings and Jon siding with Stannis. We know how the crown feel about Jon because that was explicitly stated by Cersei, Pycelle, and Swyft. So the stabbing is driven by a series of motives that are actually clearly expressed in the text. The collision of these motives is what essentially drives the plot, throughout the whole series, so I think it makes more sense for the motive of the letter's author also to be expressed explicitly and not just implied, like the example of the Red Wedding you mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm not disagreeing that there is an implicit motive. I'm simply saying that I find it strange that the motive is not explicit.

Take a closely related part of the plot for example, Bowen Marsh's stabbing of Jon. From a storytelling point of view it works because Bowen Marsh's motive has been set up explicitly, not just implicitly. Marsh clearly states his position in relation to the Wildlings and Jon siding with Stannis. We know how the crown feel about Jon because that was explicitly stated by Cersei, Pycelle, and Swyft. So the stabbing is driven by a series of motives that are actually clearly expressed in the text. The collision of these motives is what essentially drives the plot, throughout the whole series, so I think it makes more sense for the motive of the letter's author also to be expressed explicitly and not just implied, like the example of the Red Wedding you mentioned.

I see what you mean.

But I don't think it is safe to assume that GRRM always has to state character intent explicitly. 

One thing to take into account is that up until very recently before the arrival of the PL Ramsay has been preoccupied with Stannis. And his bride had not run off. So it makes sense that Ramsay only now (after Theon leaving Winterfell) really gets into the Jon-hunting business. But at that point there is no POV in Winterfell to give any explicit explanations.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

So let me get this straight, Ramsay rides out sometime after the Freys and Manderlys, comes upon the aftermath of the battle and is misinformed by Manderlys or Karstarks who have switched sides and present him with the sword and Lord Karstarks head which they say is Stannis, they tell him they already sent someone after Arya, Ramsay accepts this, rides back to Winterfell, writes the letter? Is that an accurate summary of your position?

If who wrote the letter was never meant to be in question then GRRM would have made that very clear by including one reason more of the characteristics of Ramsay's letters, which he had previously set up.

No one disputes that Jon has the wildling army. The point the OP made was that the author of the letter, without knowing about the wildling army, could never have expected Jon to ride south given the news of Stannis' defeat and the hopelessness of the situation. You disagreed with that your earlier post, even if you were not replying directly to the op. But now It seems you are leaning towards the letter being a pretext for Ramsay to come and get Jon, unless of course Jon comes to Ramsay, which the OP says the author could not expect.

I did say from a literary point of view the motive has not been set up, and by that I mean there has been no explicit text that promotes the idea. And that is something beyond dispute. There has been ample opportunity in the course of the story for GRRM to tell the reader how the Boltons feel about Jon and what risk he might pose, as a bastard bound to the Wall. But not once did GRRM take this opportunity, preferring to leave it implicit instead, which measures poorly against the 3 times he explicitly set up Stannis motive toward Jon across 2 books. 

Yes, with the addition that Ramsay wanted to ride straight to CB from WF, but was talked into writing the letter by Roose who explained all the problems with heading to the wall in force that I laid out in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Amris said:

I see what you mean.

But I don't think it is safe to assume that GRRM always has to state character intent explicitly. 

One thing to take into account is that up until very recently before the arrival of the PL Ramsay has been preoccupied with Stannis. And his bride had not run off. So it makes sense that Ramsay only now (after Theon leaving Winterfell) really gets into the Jon-hunting business. But at that point there is no POV in Winterfell to give any explicit explanations.

 

 

9 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

Yes, with the addition that Ramsay wanted to ride straight to CB from WF, but was talked into writing the letter by Roose who explained all the problems with heading to the wall in force that I laid out in the OP.

Ok, thanks guys. I respect your positions, and even if we disagree I hope I made a case that shows the idea of Stannis as the author is not as ridiculous as some people think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

 

Ok, thanks guys. I respect your positions, and even if we disagree I hope I made a case that shows the idea of Stannis as the author is not as ridiculous as some people think.

I still can't see it, but I do recognize that enough intelligent people believe it, so it is certainly a possibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

 

Ok, thanks guys. I respect your positions, and even if we disagree I hope I made a case that shows the idea of Stannis as the author is not as ridiculous as some people think.

It's fun speculating and we have to pass the time waiting for Winds. While to me the question of who wrote the letter seems pretty clear I have erred often enough :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...